Gray-sexual and Gray-asexual need to be two different terms?

[Guest]

Yeah, well, young people can shove it.

As Iong as they're IegaI, I'm game

[binary suns]

I am grey because most asexuals would not be compatible with me, and I am not compatible with most sexuals. it's very possible I'll end up in either an asexual relationship or a sexual relationship, it could go either way.

trying to label grey based off of compatability seems very silly to me. even as someone who decided she was grey because of compatability! because the reasons for why I am grey are private things - things that I like doing, and don't realy want to talk about, and things that I don't like doing, and also don't want to share either. those reasons are why I am grey. the way to express what being grey is for me makes the most sense as - "partially feels sexual attraction" and anyone who tries to tell me that I'm secretly sexual and don't want to admit it is basically telling me that because I am different I have to go around telling the world all the intimate details about what kind of sex life I'm comfortable with. how does that make any sense?

and this is the reality - "grey" basically means "controversial". aka, "not easy to name/define"

greysexuality is something that should remain "immune" to all those adament on clear labels out there. I don't think that the definition for asexuality should change - not because it is not weak - there are ways it is - but because everyone who cares about changing it wants to destroy the very important reality that asexuality is not the same for everyone. and this is even more important for grey - because most grey people are very much not the same.

the person who is most like me as a grey sexual - is still very different. the way he'd want grey defined would not be the way I'd want it defined, if we each tried to define it "best match" for our individual experiences.

and in the end - a label is an individual's decision. there are plenty of grey people out there who hapilly call themselves sexual - not because they are sexual, but because they found themselves a partner who works for them well enough that they don't care about labels anymore. and the same about greys who just go through life as asexuals and don't care. if you want to try to label sexuality precisely and judgementally - it's a pointless excercise - the only people who you'd be policing are the very people who are trying to avoid discrimination by coming to terms with who they are. everyone else will just walk away from you and ignore you.

[Star Bit]

It's a play on words that I would prefer not stick, personally.

Regarding the rest, I'm still sticking with grey A. I'm too sexy to befullya-sexy, but too a-sexy to be fully sexual :P

But that's not what my newest comment was about.

We need a new quick phrase for the Gray area (or ditch such a thing entirely) because some people are interpreting "between sexual and asexual" as desiring select types of sex (namely non-penetrative, but maybe they're gravitating toward doing so because there's no nickname for them yet).-- well, i did ask before that if quasisexual coule be used on people who only want phone sex and whatnot

Personally, I think grey-asexuality is actually more like grey-sexual. (And I would fit that label.) So I think greysexual is more appropriate of a term. I don't think there's any need for new terminology. Unpopular opinion: You're either asexual or you're not. Grey-ace and grey-sexual are the same thing in my eyes.

Yah, but as said, there's a problem with them being interchangeable. And there's a problem with ditching the term Gray-ace because Lithsexuals, Fictosexuals, Autosexuals, and people like Panficto who have fetishes that're too close to being sexual but not desired for sexual reasons are all closer to being asexual because they won't desire sex in a relationship, so identifying as Gray-sexual would be misleading for them. Then why don't have them go by ace? Because (for most of the aforementioned) they do desire sex, just not IRL. And while I'm fine with them identifying as ace others aren't. And it does make aces look hypocritical; "so you do desire sex, but not with anyone in reality".

[Guest]

It's a play on words that I would prefer not stick, personally.

Regarding the rest, I'm still sticking with grey A. I'm too sexy to befullya-sexy, but too a-sexy to be fully sexual :P

But that's not what my newest comment was about.

We need a new quick phrase for the Gray area (or ditch such a thing entirely) because some people are interpreting "between sexual and asexual" as desiring select types of sex.-- well, i did ask before that if quasisexual coule be used on people who only want phone sex and whatnot

I know what your newest comment was about I just kind of disagree :lol:

I think the grey area is there for a reason (it's for all those people that are somewhere in between) and as long as they're not mistakenly saying they're fully asexual because they only want sex on Tuesdays or whatever then I don't care. It's obvious I'm not asexual (well, not fully ace anyway) but I also could never have a relationship with a sexual due to massive sexual disparity (no desire to actually *have* sex) so I'm sticking with the "grey area". I don't think a more specific label is needed beyond that.

[Star Bit]

But there's a problem with people who only desire non-penetrative sex going by Gray-asexual. Gray-sexual at least but then every other person who desires sex unusually would be Gray-sexual and that's not how it should be used.

[Grumpy Alien]

I think the clarification between grey-sexual and grey-asexual is overly specific. That was my point. I think they're essentially the same and shouldn't have asexual in the name because they're not asexual.

[champagnerain]

Isn't defining someone as gray asexual vs. gray sexual based on whether or not they can sustain a sexual relationship...basing orientation on behavior? I think one of the most oft-repeated phrases here on AVEN is that (a)sexuality is based on desire, not behavior.

[Star Bit]

I think the clarification between grey-sexual and grey-asexual is overly specific. That was my point. I think they're essentially the same and shouldn't have asexual in the name because they're not asexual.

Which i agree to an extent, but as we said, Panficto desires fetishes that tread too close to being sexual, thus she identifies as Gray-A, yet she never desires sex and thus is not Gray-sexual so Gray-A is needed for both her and Lith, Auto, and Fictosexuals. What the redefinition would be is that Gray-asexuals are effectively asexual and not just "i feel I'm asexual more often than sexual" as it's currently defined. Much to your same complaint with Gray, these people like Lithsexual and the other aforementioned are also not asexual, so where do they go? Other than Gray-sexual which is incredibly misleading for them to use.

Isn't defining someone as gray asexual vs. gray sexual based on whether or not they can sustain a sexual relationship...basing orientation on behavior? I think one of the most oft-repeated phrases here on AVEN is that (a)sexuality is based on desire, not behavior.

Other than the nit pick of Gray not being an orientation but a sub-orientation (because it's about when not who), no, it's not a behaviorist definition because it's not behavior it's capability.

[champagnerain]

So...because you classify it as a "sub orientation," it isn't valid as/doesn't follow the same rules as "true" orientations? A desire-based definition is only useful when it signifies "who" but not "when/how often"? I am confused.

Capabilities implies "will engage in X behaviors" that will make the person compatible with another person, does it not? Or am I totally off base here?

[Star Bit]

No, it's not about behavior because these people aren't choosing to act this way.

Orientations are factually WHO you desire sex/romance with. This whole concept of WHEN is strictly a Gray thing and doesn't apply to a majority of people of course (otherwise ther'd be no point in the Gray umbrella). It is a needed detail but still just a detail and not a full orientation but a sub-orientation. Much like a romantic person mentioning that they're asensual (i.e. have no sensual desires which can obviously impair romantic relationships); it's needed info but asensual isn't an orientation on its own.

[Guest]

I see sexuality as either you desire sex or you don't, if you don't you're ace, if you do rarely you're still ace. Aside from the few cases of in-between, like demisexuals. Maybe demis would be gray-sexual, since they are capable of sexual attraction, just only rarely. Whereas a grey-ace would be like an asexual experiencing attraction once in their entire life, or sort of experiences it but doesn't desire it.

I see romantic orientations as more complicated since there's the whole "romantic attraction vs romantic desire". (Whereas with sexual attraction it's more that the desire for sex is attraction.) But I do see some of the labels--like my recipromanticism--as simply modifiers rather than an orientation on it's own.

[Star Bit]

If someone desires sex rarely that's aceflexible or (gray)sexual; just like someone desiring the same gender rarely is heteroflexible or just bi.

But i agree, categorizing the romantic side is complicated.